In this article
Before moving a timecard, distinguish its review grouping, invoice destination and current lock state.
Two containers, different consequences
A grouping question can look like a missing-record question. A reviewer expects a card in one collection, finds it elsewhere and assumes it was not submitted. First identify the record itself, then its batch and invoice references. Do not recreate a card just to make an expected list look complete.
Cast & Crew’s move-timecards guide distinguishes batches from invoices and describes unlocked, soft-locked and hard-locked states. In its documented model, soft locking prevents automatic additions while an accountant can still move cards; once a coordinator begins preparing the edit, a hard lock limits moves to that coordinator. Check the current guide and your permissions before acting.
A pre-move comparison
| Question | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| Is this the same timecard? | Similar worker names or adjacent weeks do not identify a record. |
| What is the current invoice? | Moving between batches may not create the intended invoice separation. |
| What is the destination? | A familiar label may still be the wrong processing group. |
| What is the lock state? | The next action may belong to the coordinator. |
| Who requested the move and why? | The administrative action needs a clear production purpose. |
Fictional example: “separate the ready cards”
A fictional production has several reviewed cards and two cards with unanswered input questions. A note asks the accountant to separate the ready cards for processing. The instruction is incomplete until it specifies whether the desired separation is merely a review grouping or a distinct invoice/edit handoff.
The accountant first confirms the intended outcome with the authorized coordinator. They do not assume that any new batch produces a separate downstream edit. After an authorized move, they check the resulting group references and communicate the exact change. This is a verification pattern, not a recommendation to split every exception into a new invoice.
Why the audit note belongs next to the action
A record moved twice can leave two teams talking about different snapshots. The internal note should identify the prior reference, resulting reference, reason and time of the action without copying sensitive payroll contents into a general chat. The underlying system remains the source of truth.
If the move did not appear to complete, inspect the current state before repeating it. A delayed interface response is not proof that nothing happened. Repeated actions can complicate the history and make the original question harder to reconstruct.
When to stop and route
Stop when the state or permission does not support the intended action, when the destination is ambiguous, or when a coordinator is already preparing the edit. Explain the desired outcome, not a workaround. A screenshot for support should be limited to the necessary context and handled under the production’s privacy rules.
For an item waiting on a person rather than a container, read review ownership. For comparing totals after regrouping, read the report comparison discipline. A tidy batch list is useful only when it still represents the right records.
Sources and scope
Public documentation checked October 25, 2026. Product facts are attributed below; the review methods and fictional examples are original editorial analysis, not an official procedure, payroll calculation or private-account test. Permissions and interfaces can differ. Follow current instructions in your authorized production environment.